“….Some people don’t like it when I say we’re in a war over food rights. We are, and the reason I repeatedly emphasize that point is that the war analogy helps us understand more clearly what’s going on around us. In wars, it’s common practice for the aggressor to offer a potential settlement or compromise after launching a huge military assault, and the enemy has fought back harder than expected. The aggressor hopes to de-rail any momentum, and divide the enemy with an offer that seems tempting to everyone who hates war, which is most of us.
Even if nothing comes of the discussions, the aggressor uses the pause to gather information and intelligence, and to re-group. McAfee indicates CDFA officials were surprised to learn there are likely more than 100 dairies with herdshare/cowshare arrangements in California. Of course they were. They don’t know much of what’s going on in the real world they regulate.
What better way to identify these dairies than to invite them to participate in a working group? Remember, the CDFA hasn’t offered immunity from prosecution, amnesty, or anything else. It hasn’t offered to discontinue going after dairies with additional cease-and-desist letters or prosecution. All it’s offering is its reputation for good heartedness. Yeah, sure.
I’m not saying you don’t communicate with the enemy. But you don’t automatically sanction the enemy’s maneuvers to lure you off the battlefield, and into sham peace discussions. In this case, there must not be any sort of advance agreement to allow CDFA to “define” herdshares and cowshares. Perhaps eventually there is some discussion about testing protocols or similar day-to-day operational and safety matters. In the meantime, there is plenty of precedent under contract law to give these private contractual ownership arrangements a very good shot at being endorsed by a California judge, or perhaps a federal judge on appeal.
Instead of defining herdshares, perhaps the more appropriate subject for discussion is how to dismantle the undercover investigations state and federal regulators have become so fond of using in recent years.
Let’s remember, we are battling as enemies some very shrewd people. Some of them are experienced professional law enforcement professionals, some are lawyers, and some are tough regulators consulting with smart lawyers (as in U.S. Department of Justice lawyers). They are spending much time, and money, probing our weaknesses, exploiting our disagreements or personal animosities.
That’s all not to say we have to be in agreement on everything, as was discussed following my previous post. We just need to counter-attack ever more shrewdly ourselves. We have the ultimate weapon: there are many more of us than them. We can’t forget that fundamental reality.”